Slashdot Mirror
Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
I think it's about time that someone is standing up to the **AA's in the world!
There's no place like localhost
Good this is getting ridiculous. Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.
Download Wars: Episode V - The Mom Strikes Back
Yes, but it sure didn't take that long to slashdot the server...
Oh well, what the hell...
Runaround Suits
I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
When you can download the audio off bittorrent?
McMahon, Colleen
;)
Born 1951 in Columbus, OH
Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;
From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799
Way to go Clinton
*quickly ducks*
...but the judge said "So let's set another conference date for July 8th at, 9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then." She had 60 days to find a somewhat competant lawyer...
It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).
Seriously, it should be either *AA or ??AA. **AA is completely reduntant...
I think it's important to point out from the transcript that the mother blames Kazaa for this happening.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
19 And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
21 that my children had downloaded anything.
Yeah.... that'll happen.
They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.
It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?
Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".
What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?
What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?
What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?
There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.
And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?
Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?
Is the IP address infallible?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
An even cheaper way to f*ck over the RIAA is to just not buy any CDs.
Your method of the free distribution of CDs still gives them a target to attack and a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of "sharing" music.
The RIAA is interested in just *one* thing - money. That means they want everyone to buy their own copy of every CD or every downloaded song because that way they get even more money. Your demonstrations of "non-compliance" are irrelevant to the RIAA borg.
The solution to the RIAA problem is to remember that as a consumer in a capitalist society, you simply *don't* buy a product you do not think is value for money or is being sold by a corporation with dubious business or political motives - no matter how much you personally may *want* that product.
Do that and you start denting the profits of the record companies who, in turn, stop financing the RIAA because they're not achieving anything.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
lives in the same world as you.
I know many peopel who don't knwo what kazza is, or more importantly, how it works.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have mod points, but there's no -1 asshole option.
So back in your face fuckwad...
Why don't you pull your ass out of your world of warcraft fantasy world, turn off the computer, walk outside and TALK TO PEOPLE.. you might just find that very few people care that much about computers, software and gadgets and of those few that do, maybe 3% have any real understanding of "what it's all abut".
And just how much time do you think a single mother of 5 has to devote to figuring out all the nifty shit a computer can do when she has work, bill, and five pesky kids to watch over and feed? Hell, I bet she uses her computer to do her taxes, pay bills and chat with family when she has time to use it at all.
So to you and others like you, wake the fuck up and get out more because you're a borderline sociopath who's clearly lost touch with the real world.
Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer
Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for herI checked out their website and found this gem
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is great arguing by the entertainment corps.
Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.
The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
OUCH!!!
Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.
Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.
Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.
This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.
Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Here you go.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest
Better yet, what she said was, Don't expect me to lure the virgin into the forest. Once you've brought her to me, she's under my protection, I decide, not you and your gang hidden away in the forest.
Infuriate left and right
Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. And here I got legally married by a district magistrate and didn't even know he was working for God. And all those papers I filed, did they go to God too?
Is God responsible for insurance coverage and cost differences based on marital status of a household?
Marriage is not only a religious institution. Historically, it's been used as a way to determine inheritance, cement alliances, transfer property, and establish responsibility and rights for others. Saying it is only a religious institution is a fairly narrow view. It can also be legal, cultural, societal, economic, and religious.
Say you download 4000 songs, get sued by the RIAA, settle out of court for 2000 dollars. 50 cents a song, half of what you'd pay on itunes.
Actually, it almost looks like it is. The music industry guys seem to have dropped the ball big time with this one.
A little digging turns up a load of links to the various litigation documents, courtesy of defence lawyer Ray Beckerman's blog. If you read the defence's revised reply memorandum of law, they make a convincing (to me as a non-lawyer) argument for what appear to be two open-and-shut claims, which basically mean the plaintiffs have failed to make a case for the defendant to answer. If the court accepts that argument, presumably any of the the other stuff doesn't matter, because the music industry didn't file it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Interestingly, just before the conclusion, that defence memorandum reads
That sounds to me like not only are they trying to get this initial case dismissed, but also they're trying to block any attempt to bring any directly related case in future. I don't know how the appeal rules work if the court finds for the defence in this case, but given the defence's argument and the judge's apparent contempt for actions that don't give the defendant a fair chance to defend herself, it sounds as though this one's going to stop as dead as any music industry case ever can.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
a harried, overworked stressed out recently divorced soccer mom and mother of five comes into a courtroom and she says she doesn't know what the hell is going on
you think she's stupid?
i think she's innocent
innocence has a funny way of appearing stupid to cynics in this world, you know?
but more important than that should be to you is this: it is upon this poor woman's back that an EXTREMELY cynical enterprise, the RIAA lawsuit mill, might actually be broken
so don't look your gift horse in the mouth
you should BLESS this woman and THANK her for being technically clueless!
there is a certain amount of knowledge in this world that is assumed to be necessary for you to survive: you have pay your taxes, you need a driver's license, etc.
but i hardly see that what you are saying is true at all: that the knowledge "p2 is bad" is common or even necessary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since IANAL, I can't answer that, but let's look at the transcript. The judge tells the defendant to try to find a lawyer, and allows time for this, squashing the plaintiff's attempt to get material from the defendant under oath before the legal advice is available. Then she tells the defendant she wants her to fight the case, and tells the plaintiff's lawyer that he has to present his case in court now they've started a lawsuit. Throughout, the judge is fairly clearly in favour of the defendant getting a fair day in court.
The one thing she doesn't do is give any indication of whether she thinks the defendant should actually win the case, and to my legally untrained mind, that seems to be the only thing that would have been inappropriate. In fact, I find it rather reassuring and highly appropriate that a judge was heavily in favour of a defendant fighting against a fair case in court, and not being intimidated into doing things that aren't in their best interests without the benefit of counsel.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So, lets say I go out and buy a DVD movie...
And I go out and buy a CD of music...
Then I go out and download every scene on that DVD from KAZAA or (insert your favorite file sharing thing here)...
Or I download every song off the CD from (share system)
Have I broken the law?
How do they know that I didn't buy it, how do they know that I don't have rights to make copies or download copies of something I have purchased...???
Hmmmm...methinks that something is smelling, and it wasn't beans and cabbage...
--E--
From http://www.stereophile.com/news/082205riaa/ ...
I wonder what the markup is on commercially produced CDs and DVDs ... 8000% ??
Such ... irony ... the recording industry complaining about the high price of pirated content ... cannot ... suppress ... gales of laughter ...
but at a personal rate, which is half his normal rate.
He expects the courts to order the RIAA to pay the bill wheh they loose;which is not uncommon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One day isn't bad. Heck, a few days isn't bad. The reason I read this website is to get news about a fairly wide range of somewhat technical-oriented subjects that interest me.
The benefit isn't necessarily timeliness, it's relevance. Or rather, how relevant the news is to what I'm concerned with.
I checked out digg.com -- it looks like a useful website but there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of overlap between their recent news and Slashdot's recent news. The Slashdot news seems to be more along the lines of what I'm interested in.
I suspect that's not the case with you. Thanks for the link though.
Kevin
As an example, Ben Franklin was an inventor, yet he was an opponent of "intellectual property." Out of all the things he invented (the Franklin stove, bifocals, etc.) none of them were patented.
Not necessarily. In my experience, most people who download music would have just done without otherwise.
You seem to have some problems constructing a logical argument. Specifically, you tend to assert that A implies B, even when it doesn't. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies so as to actually be able to convince thinking people. Pay special attention to begging the question.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
From the transcript (emphasis mine):
... The defendant was served on April 25th, and her time to expire does not --
[RIAA]:
[Judge]: Her time to answer.
[RIAA]: -- time to answer does not expire until May 15th.
Ahh...so just suing people isn't good enough...now we see what they really want!!
After reading this I expected to read that Judge McMahon had called the RIAA lawyer a Nazi.
I'm an author too, I write software. I'm an intellectual rights advocate as well. I advocate considerably shorter copyright terms and an entire restructuring of the patent system. Copyright is completely broken by the existence of copyright terms lasting for life + 75/95 years. Copyright should last a maximum of 28 years. Given the extremely efficient means of distribution and production that we have today as opposed to 200 years ago, I would even support shorter terms. Special interests and politicians like Sonny Bono have stolen what rightfully belongs in the public domain. In doing so, they have created an environment where the people at large see no reason to respect the system. Because the system is so imbalanced, people feel no shame infringing on an author's copyright. Who here would refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" to their child in public on grounds of infringing Time Warner's intellectual property?
Additionally, they've created an environment where innovation is no longer possible. An author cannot build on the work of others because once written, the work is monopolized perpetually. Due to the system we have now, innovation is dragging to a halt. The systems that made this country mighty are now killing it. Look at how horribly broken the patent system has become. Numerous 'businesses' exist solely to patent everything thinkable and sue anyone who dares to create. Empty shell companies do nothing but collect 'Intellectual Property' and sue others who attempt to make an idea into reality.
The fundamental reason for copyright, patents and the whole morass of 'intellectual property' is to encourage innovation and progress, not to impede it. The only way to restore intellectual rights is to restore balance to the system. Even if they weren't suing grandmothers and children, I'd feel no pity for the RIAA. They and their lobbyists have only brought this upon themselves. Massive and flagrant infringement is the symptom, not the disease.
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
...with decades of provable payola, collusion to fix prices, accounting tricks to make hundred million dollar movies always look like losses, screwing talent out of any decent cut, and etc that someplace sometime some DA might apply RICO to them, because it sure fits. They should be the last people pointing fingers and accusing someone of being a crook.
Heinlein put it best.
------
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.